Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday March 05, 2014 @05:33PM
from the time-to-mistakenly-invoke-the-constitution dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "Most of the time, Facebook allows its users to hawk goods or solicit donations on Pages or Timeline postings, comparing such activity to placing a physical note on a bulletin board at a supermarket. Now it plans on regulating users who rely on this method to sell what it calls 'regulated' items, which includes firearms. 'Any time we receive a report on Facebook about a post promoting the private sale of a commonly regulated item, we will send a message to that person reminding him or her to comply with relevant laws and regulations. We will also limit access to that post to people over the age of 18,' Facebook announced as part of the new rules. The social network will also prevent users from posting any sort of items 'that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law,' which means no offers to sell firearms across state lines or without a background check. Presumably, Facebook will have filters in place that allow it to scan for such content. Facebook is a private network, of course, and not (despite its ubiquity) a public utility — meaning it can do whatever it wants with regard to Terms of Use. But that likely won't stop some people from complaining about what they perceive as the company overstepping its boundaries."

It's expressly legal for private inviduals to sell to other private individuals (without crossing state lines) without a background check; indeed it's *illegal* for said private individuals to perform such a background check, at least on the federal level.

Now you may have some sort of state/local law that requires checks between inviduals, but sheesh.

True, but it's definitely NOT legal to sell a gun to somebody you know, or can reasonably be expected to know, can't legally buy one. So, if your buyer says "I'm a convicted felon," definitely not legal. If your buyer says "you're not going to require a background check, are you?" you're on very shaky ground, since that's very close to an admission that, were there to BE a background check, the buyer wouldn't pass. Remember, willful blindness isn't a defense.

So when the Christian Fundamentalists take control, they can round up all the babykillers and send then to work camps. Or maybe just publicly ostracize and shame them. Or maybe even so the database can be leaked to a newspaper, and the names and addresses will be published.

Your assumption is that any expression of distaste for a background check is an indication the buyer would not pass one. It's an errant assumption.

No one wants to go through the background check because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up. So quite naturally people are not willing to go through it in a situation where it is not legally required.

You are required to keep a record of the transaction with the serial number. If the weapon you sold were used in a crime later, it will be traced back to you. The original retail sale is on record, that person (if not you) will then produce the name of the person he sold it to, which is either you or will lead to you via reiterating the same process. If you cannot produce the weapon or produce a receipt showing who you sold it to, then you're in trouble. But until and unless there is a criminal investigation to justify the intrusion, that information is no one's business.

... because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up.

It's not even that. You say it later:

that information is no one's business.

There is/was quite a brouhaha (at least in our area) over the sudden decision that concealed carry permit applications were public records, and that some newspapers were getting the records and publishing maps of the houses of permit holders. Those who filled out the forms had no expectation that the data was a public record, and the form didn't tell them that it was. Some of the local sheriffs went on record as saying they were not going to treat them as public recor

When I was living in Quebec, I refused to buy "non-restricted" firearms from fellow Quebeker because all of them wanted to have the gun transferred/registered, which is, by federal law, illegal. So by your logic, by refusing to endorse the illegal behavior of Quebec's CFO, I am not to be trusted to be properly licensed (which is the only constraint we have for non-restricted firearms), and be seen as "trying to get around the law" ?

Yeah but your life would suck hard if those guns were used to kill anyone important. Regardless of your rights you would become a person of interest and potentially slapped with an abetting charge. You have no record of the sale so no proof that you did not supply the weapons specifically to have your alleged accomplice commit the crime. Just imagine the Feds showing up to let you know that your firearms were involved in the killing of a US Senator and the suspected you of belonging to a pro-gun militant gr

... indeed it's *illegal* for said private individuals to perform such a background check, at least on the federal level.

There is no federal law restricting private individuals from running a criminal background check prior to selling a firearm. I guess what you mean to say is that private individuals can't use the federal NICS system [fbi.gov] to perform the check unless they are Federal Firearms Licensees registered with the FBI.

There is no federal law restricting private individuals from running a criminal background check prior to selling a firearm. I guess what you mean to say is that private individuals can't use the federal NICS system [fbi.gov] to perform the check unless they are Federal Firearms Licensees registered with the FBI.

Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.

Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.

A background check is defined that way only for FFL's. IOW, the only way a FFL can legally sell a firearm is by clearing the buyer through the NICS. Private citizens may perform a background check on a potential gun buyer (through the usual private channels) if it suits them. There is absolutely no federal law against doing so. The post I originally replied to suggested otherwise.

But tell you what, if you can show me a federal law that says "the only legal method of performing a background check prior t

So you are arguing over what the definition of is is. You point out that it's illegal for a "background check" as done by FFL, the most common kind, to be done by a non-FFL, yet object when someone else points out the exact same thing, using slightly different (and, from my perspective, more accurate) wording.

But tell you what, if you can show me a federal law that says "the only legal method of performing a background check prior to the sale of a firearm is through the NICS", I'll be happy to change my mind. : )

Try "the only legal method of performing a background check prior to the sale of a firearm for an FFL is through the NICS," and that "required" check is not usable by non FFL for checking buyers, so i

I'm gonna be negatively commented out, but I disagree with that law. It has become too damn easy to create "felon" out of non-violent crime. Heck, you can become a felon over sheer copyright infringement, or because you were in the wrong place when you were 15 and got caught smoking marijuana... As a result, your constitutional right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is made void, without any chance to redeem yourself.

Shockingly, recently release stats say that by the age of 25, 40% of men will have been arrested. Could it have anything to do with us continuing to pass more and more laws which in turn make ordinary citizens into criminals? Naww....

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

What we called today the "Wild West" was probably more civilized than some poor metropolitan area today... As for the gun ban argument, have a look to Australia and UK, whose rate of violent crime has never been so high, while they have utter strict gun law.

Much more interesting is the discussion on the whole 'perpetual felon' idea. In my book you are a felon while serving your punishment or on parole, but once your debt is paid, you're a free man and should have all the same rights as anyone else, which include the right to vote and the right to own firearms. Only exception to this rule should be sex offenders who should be registered and pedophiles should be banned from working with children and living near schools and similar child-dense areas.

"It is federally legal for private individuals to sell to other private individuals within the state".

It is? Even though the Second Amendment forbids the federal government this sort of power?

So you are objecting, indicating that it's federally illegal for private individuals to sell to other private individuals within the state? If that's not what you are saying, then why are you objecting so strongly to a statement you agree with?

It doesn't. The only thing a database provide is for gun confiscation by an authoritarian state. This objective is the real objective of nowadays anti-gun movements, complete disarmament of law abiding citizens. Cf. the behavior of the RCMP in Canada during the High River flood, they used the then-illegal former long gun registry to invade homes an cease guns. They are doing the same now with the recent prohibition of the Swiss Arm Classic Green, and the CZ-859.

It was also rather fun in the intro scene of the original Red Dawn to see the invading force get all the 4473 form to cease gun from citizens.

Outside of a database, how else do you effectively and in a reasonable amount of time identify someone who is unfit to buy a weapon at a point of sale? Give them an ad hoc mental examination? Ask them nicely if they have a history of criminal violence? Lie detector test? A database is more effective than anything else to do this.

We should have laws for things that are inherently wrong, like murder. Owning a gun is not inherently wrong, and therefore should not be prohibited since the attempt to do to won't prevent criminals from getting guns illegally anyway.

No - laws should punish things that are actually wrong. Theft, rape, murder, etc. Anything that it is claimed simply facilitates the breaking of another law without causing direct harm itself should not be illegal.

In the terms of this site - the DMCA is wrong, because (as is obvious) the pirates are gonna pirate stuff regardless. The law only prevents legitimate uses.Banning guns or complicating the process is wrong, because murderers are going to get guns and kill people anyways.

Put simply, laws do not PREVENT crime. Never have, never will. All they do is define what crime is, so that we can identify those that have done society wrong and punish them accordingly.

You know and I know that it's impossible to prove that a database has stopped any instance of someone shooting up a school. But it logically follows that a database can identify someone who is a felon, mentally unstable, has a PFA against them, etc. It raises the barrier and makes it more difficult for any of these people to get a weapon. Could they get one elsewhere? If they tried hard enough, probably. It's likely it has stopped several mass violence events by at least stopping some of the less motiv

You know and I know that it's impossible to prove that a database has stopped any instance of someone shooting up a school. But it logically follows that a database can identify someone who is a felon, mentally unstable, has a PFA against them, etc. It raises the barrier and makes it more difficult for any of these people to get a weapon. Could they get one elsewhere? If they tried hard enough, probably. It's likely it has stopped several mass violence events by at least stopping some of the less motivated potential mass killers, the low hanging fruit. But using the logic behind your often cited argument, we should just have gun and ammo stands outside schools, because, hey, these people are going to get a weapon somehow and shoot up a school, right?

You seem to be confusing the database for background checks, which most certainly does exist, and which is run on me whenever I purchase a gun, with a national gun registry. The former may be reasonably expected to prevent gun violence at some level, and most gun rights advocates that I know don't object to it. The latter has no logical relation to preventing gun violence, but every possible relation to confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.

I think in order to keep everybody safe we should prohibit gun sales, so only the people who currently have guns can have guns. then we make a DB of the people who currently have the guns and we'll be all set.

If it's so dangerous for people to have guns why stop at just those who already have them. I would support total disarmament as long as NO ONE in gov't is allowed to have armed guards.

I would support total disarmament as long as NO ONE in gov't is allowed to have armed guards.

Why that condition? Do you honestly believe that the moment the general populace is disarmed, armed government officials will start shooting people left right and center? That every civil liberty you have will be trampled underfoot?

Speaking as someone living in a country with pretty strict gun control laws... the former ain't happening. (And even if it did, it's certainly possible to fight back with improvised weapons at least long enough to start seizing guns from the oppressive agents.) The latter is happ

He's not saying that. What he's saying is that it's hypocritical for politicians (and their minions) to have armed guards, and for us peons to not have the same means to protect ourselves. Even if all guns were confiscated, criminals would still have guns. That's why they're criminals - they don't obey the law.

I've always thought that somebody who has their own armed guards (politicians, celebrities, sports stars, etc) speaking out against firearms was hypocrisy to the extreme.

Oh, why do nearly all of the Federal agencies have their own armed officers now? Why have they been buying millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition? Why have they been buying sniper ammunition? Why does an FDA agent need a firearm? How long before they decide that they're the only ones who have firearms. Hmmm?

Stay in your country if you like it so much, and stay out of our discussions. You don't vote here.

Yes. I do believe that there will be civil unrest due to authoritarian tendencies of the US government in the next 50 or so years. The second amendment is the very crucial amendment of the Bill Of Rights, it is protecting all the other amendment. Freedom of expression, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure are pretty weak without an armed population. Remember that what is given by the pen can also be taken by the pen.

This isn't just Zuckerberg's plaything anymore. There are investors to whom they must answer.

You think Facebook is worried about investors, or that the investors are any different than the people demanding censorship? Does the current political powers have say in this regardless of the investors desires? Facebook has already stated that they plan to censor. Not only sales mind you but any pro 2nd amendment discussion could be blocked to anyone under 18.

Facebook has already been banning members and hiding discussion regarding pro 2nd amendment rights (as well as other topics the Government does n

I can sell assault weapons for cash all day long in my state to private people without even getting their name. and "GASP" most of my "DANGEROUS ASSULT WEAPONS" are unregistered as well..

Oh the horror....

That said, the last place I would sell them is to twits on Facebook. Cripes even ebay twits are not worth dealing with. There are plenty of great private gun selling sites that have people that understand the values and have clues...

First, how do you even define an "assault weapon." An "assault rifle," as defined by Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is capable of select-fire (AKA machine gun). Those are 100% not OK to just sell, as you need a $200 federal permit, and the approval of a local law-enforcement agency.

However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

What I absolutely love is how the definition (to borrow from Wikipedia again) includes:

In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., assault weapon definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.

Wow. Adding a safety feature and cosmetic features changes the categories. This makes as much sense as taking a street-legal car, painting it red, adding a rear spoiler, roll bars, and suddenly it is a race car that is not legal for street use.

Seriously, all of this talk about assault weapons gets tiresome. If somebody was shooting at me, the color of the rifle and the presence or absence of a pistol grip would be the last thing on my mind.

NOT the conservatives, the RCMP did. They have their own agenda, as well as authoritarian power to decide whether or not to prohibit a firearm. The minister of public safety, Steven Blaney, issued an amnesty, but it still did not change the loss/enjoyment/ of property for thousand of law abiding canadians....

However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has it right, in its own "being unbiased in the wording" way.

"Assault Rifle" is a technical term in warfare. It first applied to a particluar select-fire rifle short enough to avoid getting hung up when popping up through the hatch of a tank to fire at surrounding infantry (or otherwise going through tight spaces), and since has been applied to others with simiilar characteristics. This trades away some accuracy for rapid fire and rapid movement.

"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by antigunners and defined in particular laws, to confuse the population about proposed gun control laws by making them appear to be banning military design Assault Rifles when they actually ban a hodge-podge of civilian guns based on some arbitrary (and juristiction-specific) set of characteristics typically unrelated to any objective standard of danger or functionaity.

The simple definition:An assault rifle is an automatic (including select-fire and burst-fire) rifle in a small caliber (either a short 7mm-class round like the AK47/M14, or 5mm-class round like the AK74/M16, although really anything below 12.7mm is an assault rifle). They are similar, but distinct, from the light machine gun (a squad-level weapon designed for sustained fire, using rifle-type ammunition usually from a drum or belt), the sub-machine gun (fires pistol rounds, usually smaller than an assault ri

True - I originally had it written as ".30" but decided to use metric and didn't think it through all the way. Although to be pedantic I never defined "7mm-class", which could very well mean 7.00-7.99mm (Wikipedia provides precedent here [wikipedia.org] - it seems the people in charge of gun classification *do* fail to round properly).

However, we are quickly approaching recto-cranial levels of pedantry, so perhaps it's best if I just stop now.

Yes, I love selling to criminals, you know most gangbangers love buying $1500 AR-15's and $4500 AR-50 sniperrifles, you see them all over the place with these guns in the street. They paint Converse logos on them, and get them gold plated to match their spinner rims YO! The Gangers love big guns that attract attention and are expensive as hell!

Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun while you walk the streets looking for targets. I now offer to sellers getting them engraved with "thug life" and gold plating the Uppers.

Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun...

I don't think even the worst gangbanger is so physically deformed that he has a 6 foot long gun. Or am I the only one who remembers drill sergeants correcting their "pupils" when they refer to their M16 incorrectly by having them recite "this is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for shooting, the other's for fun", with the associated crotch-grab?

The military does a lot to get people to conform, and that's a good example (I'm a veteran and have much more extreme examples if you like). That said, many people outside of the military refer to rifles as "long guns". I'm fine with that.

They are a private company and can (or should be) allowed to impose whatever rules they want... Its only the federal government that is required to adhere to the bill of rights. So until the Constitution gets amended, we can argue about how illegal background checks, waiting periods, and registration by the federal government are - but there is absolutely nothing you can say about FB doing whatever they feel is right.

I never said so, and it does not. Warfare and aggression is in human nature. You are living in a dream thinking you can legislate to change human nature. Moreover, I live in black bear, coyote, and cougar area. When I go hiking, I am packing a weapon, might it even be a good old blade.

Meh. The NRA does/not/ speak for me, those people are batshit crazy. My rifles are for target shooting and hunting; nothing like blowing the shit out of a recalcitrant printer with eighty rounds from one's Mosin-Nagant.

ATI has made an aftermarket polymer stock which accepts a 10 rounds, single stack, mag. Buy a few extra mag and smoke the sh*t out of that printer ! You might end up dislocating your shoulder once or twice, but that's a detail !

I'm amazed that anyone who considers themselves a freedom loving American would sell out to a sleazebag liberal corporate-whore advertising goat-raper* like Facebook. In fact, I'm not even sure why this is on slashdot, since - based on most FB stories - almost nobody here is even signed up for the service.

I'm amazed that anyone who considers themselves a freedom loving American

Likewise. It would be interesting to actually analyze the "ads" that Facebook has actually removed. My bet is they fall into three categories; thug life types passing around $50 zinc belly guns, the fabulously stupid, and all of the above. Competent gun owners don't resell guns on fucking Facebook.

Anyhow, precious few of us will be the least bit upset about Facebook's little manufactured controversy. Corporate anti-gun grandstanding is about as novel as Guardian stories on Israeli "crimes."

FORTUNE [cnn.com]: When he's not too busy connecting people across the universe, Mark Zuckerberg is pursuing a new "personal challenge," as he calls it. "The only meat I'm eating is from animals I've killed myself," says the Facebook founder and CEO...Zuckerberg's new goal came to light, not surprisingly, on Facebook. On May 4, Zuckerberg posted a note to the 847 friends on his private page: "I just killed a pig and a goat."

According to today's press release [momsdemandaction.org], "Facebook will provide public education ad space targeted at users interested in firearm-related content to ensure they know about the laws related to gun sales." Perhaps among those targeted by Facebook for education will be Facebook's own CEO - FORTUNE indicated Zuckerberg was interested in firearms [cnn.com] ("Zuckerberg has learned to hunt, according to people close to him. He got a hunting license and recently shot and killed a bison.")

This amounts to the sort of censorship that online forums and chatrooms/services have been attempting to do for a long time now. Problem is wordfilters don't work, there's always a way around them, and faster than they can add terms to the wordfilter, someone comes up with another euphemism or substitute for the word or phrase being blocked. Same thing will happen here, they'll just come up with different words to say "gun for sale", and Failbook will never be able to keep up with the evolution of the langu

I think they would prefer to be hounded by those, as opposed to the NRA. If the recent events have shown anything, it's that anti-gun petitions and demonstrations are significantly less numerous than pro-gun ones - simply because most people who are vaguely for stricter gun control don't care all that much about it (not enough to get their ass off the chair and do something, basically), while a significant proportion of gun owners will treat gun control as a very serious issue and are willing to invest a co

There is no legal requirement to run a background check for interstate sales of long guns. Period. Interstate sales of handguns must go through an FFL dealer. There is no legal requirement to perform a background check or go through a dealer for INTRAstate sales from person to person. That's the law. If Facebook doesn't like that, who the f*ck are they to make their own laws that supersede federal laws? Imagine how ugly things would get if someone decided that a photo ID was required to vote. Oh, wait, that did happen and the feds stomped all over it. Bottom line is that if someone wants to get a gun without going through legal methods, they are going to find a way. Criminals don't care how many laws they break.

Beyond this issue, this is an illustration of Facebook thinking it's important.

Actually selling firearms is mostly legal. Some States have certain regulations you have to comply with but generally compliance isn't that difficult. I don't know why they'd use Facebook though as there are much better places to advertise their wares that are known to people interested in buying and selling firearms. This is just a lot of hysteria as people who like to bitch are looking for an excuse to be offended. Facebook is privately owned and can ban pretty much anything they want.